~~if I write a loophole in your employer's code, like a patch, that keeps them from having to pay you, and they like not having to pay you, I haven't done anything egregious or unethical?~~

~~I don't really care about the ethics in the Revanced situation nor the greater adblocking scene. That's a moral question for individuals to answer. From a legal perspective, I don't agree with the removal of original code. While I don't know of a legal precedent for the digital age, the closest physical comparison I can make is to the distribution of a lock-pick or a gun. And we don't prosecute lock-pick manufacturers for selling to a thief, we prosecute the thief for breaking into someone's home with it. Exempting cases where the actual product is illegal, such as specific gun models, but as far as I am aware there is no such law against any software (yet). Even if there were, I doubt it would all under the perview of DMCA. Thus my reasoning for saying this is an abuse of DMCA and my reason for distaste towards the situation.~~

~~Bringing this back to your original comment:~~

~~I wouldn’t expect Spotify to just let people use premium services for free. Fuck Spotify, right there with y’all on that, but this isn’t egregious or unethical behavior for them.~~

~~I wouldn't expect them to either! But I also don't expect them to try and take down material they have no right to take down and I would consider that to be a bit 'egregious'.~~

Edit: You know, I should have actually done the research before commenting. Anyway, I looked further into DMCA intent and it covers some circumvention tools which may(?) apply to adblockers, although I haven't heard of that being tested in court before. Leaving my comment here since it's already federated anyway.